Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
MSNBCW 10
KQED (PBS) 2
MSNBC 2
CNNW 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 18
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
is taking the prop 8 case, the perry case, as well as the doma case. and, you know, look, when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court, ted olson and david boyce, that in this country we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right, and the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in the history of this country, and i'm optimistic that once the court does hear this case and the doma case, they're going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and equality just as they have so many times in our nation's past. >> and equal protection of the laws. elizabeth, thank you for coming on. very haven't seen you in a while. equal protection of the laws. liberty is a pretty profound notion in this country. >> it is. >> pursuit of happiness is in our declaration. why not? >> here is the thing, if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. don't we judge, chris, presidents b
it better. it is an incredible day the supreme court is taking the prop 8 case as well as the doma case. when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court. in this country, we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right. the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in this country. i'm optimistic once the court hears this doma case they will come down on freedom and libberality as they have. >> elizabeth, i haven't seen you in a while. equal protection of the laws. >> if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. we -- don't we judge presidents by whether they stand tube the moment of history in which they live. we have seen president obama step up to this issue, gay marriage. >> "don't ask, don't tell" now saying he won't enforce doma. >> our military has stepped up. >> even the marines are doing a great job. >> even the marines are. now, we have to see, will the supr
today, that the supreme court is taking the prop 8 case, the perry case, as well as the doma case. and, you know, look, when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court that in this country we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right, and the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in the history of this country, and i'm optimistic that once the court does hear this case and the doma case, they're going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and equality just as they have so many times in our nation's past. >> and equal protection of the laws. elizabeth, thank you for coming on. equal protection of the laws. lib cert a pretty profound notion in this country. >> it is 37. >> pursuit of happiness is our declaration. why not? >> here is the thing, if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. don't we judge, chris, presidents by whether they stand up to the m
the doma case. gay marriage advocates who want the defense of marriage act struck down say doma creates a gay-only exception to federal recognition of state licensed marriages. and we believe that the federal government should stop discriminating against same sex couples legally married by their states. but defender of traditional marriage between one man and one woman say, quote: since president bill clinton signed doma into law, 30 states have followed suit by incorporating the definition of marriage into their constitutions. voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution. arguments on both cases are likely to be in march and rules likely in june. shep? >> shepard: we got another announcement from the supreme court today. it's going to take up another case that really could effect what we all pay for prescription drugs. >> right. this is about the battle between more expensive brand name drugs and cheaper generic drugs. some of the brand name companies pay the generic drug makers to keep cheaper drugs off store counters whi
. the justices will also review a provision of the federal "defense of marriage act" or doma that deprives legally married gay couples of federal benefits that are available to heterosexual couples. same-sex marriage is legal or will be soon in nine states and the district of columbia. but 31 states have amended their constitutions to bar gay unions. here with us to explain today's development, and where it could lead, is marcia coyle of "the national law journal." welcome back, marcia. >> thanks, marg wet. >> warner: so is it fair to say first of all that the court's decision to hear these first two cases in itself a momentous decision? >> absolutely. a number of gay rights organizations, particularly as if relates to the federal defense of marriage act have been working towards that point. and yes, whatever the court says, if it reaches the merits of these cases will be extremely important. >> warner: let's take them one by one, prop 8 in california first. remind us briefly of how what started out as a state issue ended am in the supreme court. >> the california supreme court a number of
of the arc of history and civil rights, given the fact that they're taking up both doma and prop 8. i wonder where you think roberts fits into all this. >> based on some of the other decisions he has made, i don't think he is quite as conservative as some people think. i think taking up the doma case is really important because we really need to have the defense of marriage act struck down. marriage in the states is great. but at the end of the day, there is an awful lot of benefits that come from the federal tax code, that people who get married need to enjoy if you're going to have a fair and equitable situation in society. so i think they made a big step forward here. and, you know, the court is a hard place to read. unfortunately, it's not like the election. well don't have nate silver to read every morning to tell us how it's going to turn out. but we'll all be watching closely. >> chris, there is a third issue that the justices haven't taken up yet, and that's an arizona law that bars some same-sex spouses from access to state benefits. where do we go on that? what happens to that issu
or doma. the cases aren't expected to be decided until next june, the fact that they're weighing in on the debate will have a national effect. back at the table. kenji yoshino. donna edwards, bob herbert and joining us is ray kerry. the executive director of the guy and lesbian task force. i'm going to you kenji, you're always here to set my constitutional framework for me. it's going to be two cases, right? what's at issue in the two separate cases. >> i should do them in the order you presented them. the prop 8 case is about a state ban on same-sex marriage. so there are equal protection and due process challenges. what that means is, this violates the fundamental right of fairness of streeting gay and straight couples the same. you're denying us the fundamental right to marriage. there's a quality component and a rights component to it. if the supreme court goes big on that case, it could guarantee same-sex marriage as a law of the land. flipping the 41 states that currently don't have it and requiring them to have it. i don't think that's going to happen. on the other hand, i
the federal defense of marriage act, or d doma, and another involving california's proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in that state. for analysis into these historic cases, what's going to be a historic hearing, i want to bring in kinji yoshityoshito, professor of constitutional law at new york city. great to see you. >> good to see you. >> put prop 8 aside for a second. do you believe that the supreme court will strike down doma. this is what what you've said. walk me through your thinking on that one. >> y bet. so doma is a really narrow challenge insofar as what the statute does is it says for federal purposes marriages are defined between one man and one woman. so i think it might be best to clarify this by example. so you take edie windsor, a plaintiff coming out of new york who's going to be the plaintiff in this case. she was with another woman for 40 years. they got married in 2007. when her partner passed away, her wife passed away, for state purposes, in the eyes of new york state, she was next of kin. so her remains were released to edie. but for federal purposes, they were c
as well, as you know, that will be overcome. >> the other case involves doma, defense of marriage act. what's at the heart of that question? >> not the fundamental right of same-sex marriage but whether the federal government can define marriage in a certain way, as between one man and one woman. historically that's been the job of the states to decide what marriage is, to define it. that really is the federal government stepping somewhere where it hasn't before. what they have done with that statute is say people can't have thousands of federal benefits. the case before the supreme court involves a woman who had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes she wouldn't have had to pay just because the person she was married to was the same gender as herself. it's fairness but limbed to that one state. >> patricia, always good to see you. thanks for weighing in. >> thank you. >> the deadline for the fiscal cliff is just over three weeks away. lawmakers are still mired in part in gridlock, each side saying the other is to blame. what do their constituents think? cnbc says 21% would blame the presid
early next year. in fact, ten cases related to the federal defense of marriage act, or doma and proposition 8 are pending against supreme court justices right now. at least one of them is going to make it to their docket. we could find out which one today about early next week or so. i'm joined by our legal analyst jeffrey tubin. remind us what are the court's oping whz it comes to marriage equality, and the differences here between doma and prop 8. >> well, defense of marriage act -- defense of marriage act was signed by president clinton in 1996, and it's a law that says the federal government, all as pecks of the federal government, including the internal revenue service will not recognize same-sex marriages even many states where same-sex marriage is legal and two appeals courts have held that that is unconstitutional, that it is unlawful discrimination. the obama administration agrees that this law is unconstitutional. it's now being defended by a lawyer hired by the house of representatives, and the case about is the defense of marriage act constitutional, that is one.
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)